Cuz Wesley Clark was away on a romantic holiday with Elton John?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 06/24/2010 1:09:07 PM PDT by jazusamo
Gen. David Petraeus will be given the “flexibility” to submit recommendations on the Afghanistan strategy once he arrives there, but he is on board with the overall approach, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today.
“The president has established the strategy, but from my perspective, General Petraeus will have the flexibility to look at the campaign plan and the approach and – and all manner of things when he gets to Afghanistan, assuming Senate confirmation,” Gates said at the Pentagon Thursday.
Any new commander can make changes as he sees fit, he said. “And so my expectation is, certainly, that that’s what General Petraeus will do widely and make adjustments.”
Among the issues Petraeus may examine carefully involve the rules of engagement, which govern when troops can and cannot fire. Some believe those rules under McChrystal were too restrictive, effectively tying one hand behind the backs of troops.
McChrystal had emphasized the need to protect the civilian population – a tenet of an effective counterinsurgency strategy. Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency by writing the Army’s manual on it, is sensitive to this issue.
Another issue is the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops. Petraeus testimony last week suggested that he had some concerns about that timeline. After fainting during testimony, Petraeus returned to the Senate Armed Services Committee the next day to reinforce the message: that the July 2011 deadline is the beginning of the end, not the end to the end.
“It is important that July 2011 be seen for what it is: the date when a process beings, based on conditions, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits,” Petraeus said.
Only about 20,000 troops of the “surge” of 30,000 Obama ordered up last year are there. By fall, the US will have about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. The president’s decision to begin pulling troops out next summer stands, he said.
In a brief interview on Capitol Hill by CNN’s Dana Bash, Petraeus said he supported Obama’s strategy but seemed to leave room to tweak it as needed. “I support the president’s policy and I will also provide the best professional military advice as we conduct assessments,” he said.
Gates also acknowledged that progress in Afghanistan, in particular in the southern sector, has been “slower and harder than we anticipated,” but at the same time said it’s not as bad as it seems to be.
“I do not believe we are bogged down,” he said
He’ll fire Petraeus if Petraeus starts winning. I think there’s a power struggle going on in DC - Obama vs. Dems. As Rush pointed out, most Dems don’t want to be perceived as “losing,” and there are probably even a few of them who understand what is at stake here and that keeping fanatical Islamists from returning and destroying a place we had already liberated from them is vitally important.
The problem is that Obama is on the side of the fanatical Islamists, and while he’s dumb as a post and lazy as all get out, he has this one obsession and he will absolutely insist on doing everything to prevent the US from exterminating the Taliban.
I don’t know how he’s going to do it, but if Petraeus manages to get things on track there, Obama will undermine it.
Couldn’t agree more. I believe Gates in this article is laying the ground work for the changes mentioned and make it look like a mutually agreed thing with Zer0.
Which Petraeus himself subscribes to:
The use of air-to-ground munitions and indirect fires against residential compounds is only authorized under very limited and prescribed conditions (specific conditions deleted due to operational security).
(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.
This policy will not change imo
...because the battle of Britain worked so well for that other political leader...
In 2007 The Won stood with MoveOn.Org as they called him “General Betray us”. Sec. of State Clinton went so far as to vote AGAINST condemning MoveOn’s ad, one of 25 Senators to do so (3 abstained from voting, 2 were Barack and Biden).
Now they want to revise the historical record. They called him a traitor on the floor of the Senate. THAT my friends is treason. Standing with Soros’ socialist front to slur our US military in a time of war.
Now they want to make nice. And to think they have the balls to call out the General they fired over “improper remarks”.
Cuz Wesley Clark was away on a romantic holiday with Elton John?
"We're going to change the drapes in the White House game room."
The Democrat Party has been the Party of Slavery for 200 years.
For the last 40 years, they have also been the Party of Darkest Evil.
The radicals who rioted inside and outside the 2008 DNC convention (and that includes delegates and journlists) now run the DNC and the media. Some have direct ties, others are brothers in spirit to “the cause”.
The “New Democrats” of 1968 were domestic terrorists and traitors. Some were naked Communists.
All got off far too lightly for their actions (including plenty of the same in the 1970s). Barry plays it off that what Bill Ayers did was “when I was 8 years old”. Except it wasn’t. The Weather Underground FORMED in October 1969. The Penatagon bombing was in 1972. Think the media will finally discuss it when the 40th anniversary comes around in 2012?
Gee! back in 07 he was no good,he lied,was not fit etc, now he is a breath of fresh air. Wish the rats would get in step.
I don’t think so......but as usual Barry has put himself in a big pickle! This McChrystal thing sent him for a loop when the wheels are obviously coming off with the oil spill. Petraeus was a safe bet and is trusted by most of us, except of course the dems. He looks like a genius now with this pick.
However......Petraeus has a history of success, if he gets hog tied we will know for sure who was calling the shots from the beginning with the crazy ROE!
Actually, I believe the idiotic ROE changes were initially demanded by Obama.
"Military casualties in Afghanistan is the largely unreported ,immediate change in the rules of engagement that Obama insisted on the first week he was in office. "
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor/2009/11/get-america-back-on-track-with-amtrak/
Soldiers were telling him everyday these ROE are getting us killed. (Read the RS article)
How long can a leader of troops that loves them and is responsible for their welfare endure these pleas for help without breaking?
McChrystal did a brave thing when he allowed RS to tag along with he and his men, giving his troops full authority to speak their mind. So they did....God Bless them.
General McChrystal threw his career under the bus for his men.
How many lives will now be saved by his actions? We will never know because I'm guessing the ROE will be changed.
.
I believe you're correct. McChrystal wrote them for Obama and made like he fully believed in them, I don't know whether he did or not. I'm fairly certain Petraeus didn't because as far as I know those were not his ROE in Iraq but we'll soon find out
I don’t know much about McChrystal, just what I’ve read since he was made commander in Afghanistan. I had the sense he begrudgingly went along with what Obama wanted, of course he had to if he wanted to keep his job.
The ROE had darn well better be changed and I believe Petraeus has already had that conversation with Zer0, we’ll soon see.
General McChrystal threw his career under the bus for his men.
It certainly seems to be true.
The photo of General Petraeus yesterday as he stood behind Obama was puzzling to me. I kept wondering what I saw there. General Petraeus has the ability to keep all emotion closed off when facing congress, journalist, etc.
The simple answer might be he knew what McChrystal had done and why, because he knows McChrystal well.
I couldn't find the photo today or I would have added it here.
Yes, I’m pretty certain of it of him doing the poker face and knows about McChrystal’s action.
Placemark.
Placemark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.